W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > September 2001

RE: Sun and independent developers

From: Paulo Gaspar <paulo.gaspar@krankikom.de>
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 01:11:07 +0200
To: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, "Kurt Cagle" <kurt@kurtcagle.net>, <xml-rpc@yahoogroups.com>, <soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com>, <decentralization@yahoogroups.com>, <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>, <xml-dist-app@w3.org>, "Elliotte Rusty Harold" <elharo@metalab.unc.edu>
Cc: "Tim O'Reilly" <tim@oreilly.com>
Message-ID: <NEBBJJIICDPIINBNIJHJCEDJKIAA.paulo.gaspar@krankikom.de>
> Just out of curiosity, is that really true in others experience?

In my experience (and I also read a LOAD about these issues) it is
just as you say Joshua.

And that choice of expressions (avoiding "XML RPC") may even happen 
because any well informed writer is aware of XML-RPC and wants to 
avoid confusion.

In fact, the only exception I remember is this one from SUN. I just
wonder if it is because they are not well informed or if it is 
because they do not care about spreading confusion.


This episode has some parallel with the recent story of their 
logging API, which was being rushed into existence without any care 
for learning from existing and easily available experience.

In java, Log4J is the "de facto" standard for logging APIs for 
already some time. Log4J incorporates the experience resulting of 
being a widely used Open Source product and of being around since
1996. 

Log4J is now hosted by an organization (Apache) that SUN has ties 
with, which means that its considerable experience was available 
at no cost and no effort. Besides, Apache even has the additional 
experience of another logging library - Avalon's LogKit.

Still, the initiative (the PUSH) to incorporate all this know how
had to start from the Apache side. And what I see in the current 
version of the JSR-47 is that many of the remarks made by Ceki 
Gulcu (Log4J main developer), based on that very extensive 
experience and about issues where experience rules, were just 
ignored (e.g.: the amount of logging levels).
=:o\


It looks like many guys from SUN are NOT trying to learn from those 
that came before and worked hard on the same stuff they are just 
starting to address.

These guys are arrogant. They think they know it all just by divine 
inspiration. They despise previous experience.

They do not stand on the shoulders of those that preceded them.

They despise those that preceded them and this issue of abusing the 
"XML-RPC" name is just another sign of that.


It is also sad that SUN just ignores respect and politeness, acting 
like their only obligations are the ones dictated by their Legal 
Department.


Some pointers:
  JSR-47 Logging API: http://www.jcp.org/jsr/detail/47.jsp
  Log4J: http://jakarta.apache.org/log4j/docs/index.html
  LogKit: http://jakarta.apache.org/avalon/logkit/index.html


Have fun,
Paulo Gaspar


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joshua Allen [mailto:joshuaa@microsoft.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 07, 2001 11:06 PM
> To: Kurt Cagle; paulo.gaspar@krankikom.de; xml-rpc@yahoogroups.com;
> soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com; decentralization@yahoogroups.com;
> xml-dev@lists.xml.org; xml-dist-app@w3.org; Elliotte Rusty Harold
> Cc: Tim O'Reilly
> Subject: RE: Sun and independent developers
> 
> 
> >Actually, I think there's a pretty standard general usage.
> 
> >XML RPC is a generic term that is used to describe any XML based remote
> >procedure call language, and could just as easily subsume SOAP, for
> 
> Just out of curiosity, is that really true in others experience?  I have
> personally heard people talk about "XML-based RPC" or "XML Procedure
> Calls" and many other variations.  I do not believe that I have *ever*
> heard or seen anyone use "XML RPC" to mean "XML-based RPC" (other than
> in the context of this particular discussion).  I would be interested in
> evidence that this is really such a standard general usage as opposed to
> something like "XML-based RPC".
 
Received on Friday, 7 September 2001 18:57:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:03 GMT